As of now, /c/science has five posts that are less than a day old. When the community starts to get more crowded, then we should worry about making it more selective.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure I agree, as that would turn it into an exclusively science news community. A more general science discussion forum is admittedly much more demanding to moderate, but also opens things up for more activity.

Like, what if someone finds a funny clip from some flat earther or something, and wants to post it here for general amusement value, knowing it'd probably not do any actual harm here?

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago

Either keep it more general, or split out popsci / science news community. Personally I'd only do that if there's a lot of content posted.

[–] TH1NKTHRICE@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Good idea in principle. Do peer-reviewed journals only count as credible? If not, what is your proposed criteria?

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 2 points 9 months ago

I mean, using peer teviewed journals and „credible“ in the same sentence these days is quite gutsy, ngl. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/03/the-situation-has-become-appalling-fake-scientific-papers-push-research-credibility-to-crisis-point

[–] A_A@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I would accept any article which try at least to be educational and sustain science // not confuse people or sell snake oil.

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago

Until traffic becomes unmanageable, we shouldn't fracture communities too much. In fact, we should do the opposite, to drive discoverability and discussion. If the community grows to a hundred posts per day, and there are non-stop pseudoscience articles posted, then adapt.